JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. Heard through Video Conferencing. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior (M.P) in Case No. PBR/Appeal/Bhopal/Stamp Act/2018/365. 2. According to the petitioner, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that two different gift deeds were executed by the petitioner No. 2 in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The proper stamp duty was paid as per the valuation of the property. However, the Deputy Registrar referred the matter to the Collector of Stamps, Bhopal for adjudication as he was of the view that the gift deeds were under-valued and the proper stamp duty has not been paid. The Collector, Stamps by order dated 29.1.2015 passed in Case No. 32/B-305/13-14 held that the gift deed in question was under-valued and directed for payment of an additional stamp duty of Rs. 8,59,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Collector, Stamps, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, who by order dated 24.11.2015, after considering various aspects i.e. like location of property as well as the prevailing valuation etc., came to the conclusion that the petitioners had paid the proper stamp duty and set aside the order of the Collector, Stamps. 4. The order of the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal was challenged by the respondent before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue without assigning any cogent reason has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner Bhopal Division, Bhopal. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a similar order was passed by the Board of Revenue in respect of another gift deed, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 2117/2020 (Smt. Bindia Chawla & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh) which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.8.2020, thereby remanding the matter back to the Board of Revenue for adjudication of the controversy afresh. Accordingly, it is prayed that this matter may also be disposed of in the light of the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2117/2020 (Smt. Bindia Chawla & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 4.8.2020. 6. Accordingly, it is prayed that this matter may also be disposed of in the light of the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2117/2020 (Smt. Bindia Chawla & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 4.8.2020. 6. The learned Panel Lawyer for the State could not point out any distinguishable feature and also conceded that the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2117/2020 (Smt. Bindia Chawla & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 4.8.2020 would cover the present controversy also. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 2117/2020 (Smt. Bindia Chawla & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 4.8.2020, this Court has passed the following orders:- "Heard through Video Conferencing. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Akshay Pawar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. With the consent, finally heard. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by Board of Revenue (Board). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed Case No. 371/Appeal/14-15 before learned Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division feeling aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2015 passed by learned Collector of Stamp whereby the said authority directed to pay Rs. 8,59,800/- by holding that gift deed is not properly stamped. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioners by taking this Court to the findings of learned Additional Commissioner urged that the said finding is based upon the relevant policy of 2013-14. The said authority has considered the location of land and the method of its assessment for the purpose of determining the stamp duty. The Additional Commissioner has given a specific finding which is based on relevant clause of the policy. The learned Board has interfered with this finding in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant clause of the policy and without assigning any justifiable reason. He interfered with the order of Additional Commissioner, which is liable to be interfered with. Shri Pawar, learned P.L. supported the order of the Board. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. He interfered with the order of Additional Commissioner, which is liable to be interfered with. Shri Pawar, learned P.L. supported the order of the Board. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. The relevant portion of the order of learned Additional Commissioner reads as under:- ^^layXu nLrkostksa ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd okMZ Ø- 5 dksgsfQtk okMZ gS ftls 5 Hkkxksa esa foHkkftr fd;k x;k gS rFkk Á'uk/khu Hkwfe [kkuwxkao {ks= esa fLFkr gS tks dksgsfQtk okMZ ds Øekad 39 esa fLFkr gS Hkkjrh; LVkEi ¼e/;Áns'k fy[krksa dk U;wu&ewYkadu fuokj.k½ fu;e 1975 ds fu;e 5 ¼d½ ds ¼N%½ esa ;g Li"V mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd ik'oZLFk Hkwfe ;k lehiLFk Hkwfe;ksa ds ewY; ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk dh tkuh pkfg;sA miiath;d ds LFky fujh{k.k dh fjiksVZ esa mDr Hkwfe dksgsfQtk xzke ds fjtoku ckx dgs tkus okys {ks= esa fLFkr gS vkSj og [kkuwxkao {ks= ds ikl gS A fjdkMZ ij miyC/k oksVj vkbZ-Mh- vDl] Hkw&vf/kdkj ,oa _.k iqfLrdk esa Hkh fjtoku ckx] [kkuwxkao vkcknh {ks=] Ms;jh QkeZ] [kkuwxkao xzke dksgsfQtk mYysf[kr gSA ekXkZn'kZd fl)kUr o"kZ 2013&14 esa Øekad 39 ij xqQk eafnj] cjsyk xkao] nqxkZuxj] >qXxh yky?kkVh] olqa/kjk dkWyksuh] jkekuan uxj] [kkuwxkao] djcyk ekxZ lM+d ls gVdj #i;s 16]500-00 n'kkZ;k x;k gSA Á'uk/khu Hkwfe dk ewY;kadu o"kZ 2013&14 ds cktkj ekxZn'kZd fl)kUr dh dafMdk 4 ¼1½ ds vuqlkj #i;s 16]500-00 Áfr oxZehVj dh nj ls gh fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk fdUrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe dks okMZ Øekad 5 ds Øekad 38 ls x.kuk dh xbZ gS tcfd Ádj.k esa mifLFkr nLrkostksa vuqlkj eqnzkad dh x.kuk Øekad 39 ij fLFkr [kkuwxkao ,sfj;k ds vuqlkj dh tkuk pkfg;s FkhA mi;qZDr foospuk ds vuqØe esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fnukad 29-01-2015 =qfViw.kZ gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vihykFkhZ }kjk iwoZ esa vnk fd;k x;k eqnzkad 'kqYd tks [kkuwxkao ,fj;k ds vuqlkj fn;k x;k gS mfpr gksus ls nLrkost iath;r djsa vkSn vihykFkhZ dks iath;u mijkUr nLrkost okfil Ánku djsaA** This order is interfered with by learned Board by holding that:- ^^5- mHk;i{k ds fon~oku vf/koDrk }kjk ÁLrqr rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd nku dh xbZ laifRr ,d fdrk [kljk Øekad 16@1 jdck 0-35 [kkuwxkao xkze dksgsfQtk rglhy gqtwj ftyk Hkksiky nku djus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA Á'uk/khu foys[k ,ao layXu [kljs esa xzke dksgsfQtk vafdr gSA mi&iathd }kjk Hkh crk;k x;k gS fd laifRr xzke [kkuwxkao esa fLFkr ugha gSA LVkEi vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 vuqlkj fy[kr ij 'kqYd ns; gSA vr % tc fy[kr esa gh laifRr xzke dksgsfQtk esa fLFkr crykbZ xbZ gS] rc nLrkost vuqlkj gh laifRr dk {ks= Li"V gksrk gS ,oa blh vk/kkj ij 'kqYd dh ns;rk vkrh gSA lkFk gh [kljk esa Hkh xkze dksgsfQtk vafdr gSA bl Ádkj dysDVj vkWQ LVkEi }kjk ikfjr vkns'k oS/kkfud ,oa mfpr gksus ls fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; gS] fdUrq vij vk;qDr us fcuk fdlh Hkh u;h lk{; vFkok vk/kkj ds dysDVj vkWQ LVkEi dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k gSA vr% vij vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k =qfViw.kZ vkns'k gS] tks fd fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 6- mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vij vk;qDr] Hkksiky laHkkx] Hkksiky }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-11-2015 fujLr fd;k tkuk gSA dysDVj vkWQ LVkEi }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29-01-2015 fLFkj j[krs gq;s fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA** The order of learned Additional Commissioner makes it clear that he has considered location of land as per material on record. He has given findings on the basis of Clause 4(i) of the said policy. The learned Board has not taken pains to analyze the aforesaid aspect. In other words, no reasons are assigned in the impugned order of Board as to why the findings given by learned Additional Commissioner based on the said policy is faulty or illegal. If a quasi judicial order is interfered with, the minimum expectation from the Appellate/Revisional Authority is that he will deal with all the relevant points on the strength of which a litigant has succeeded. Putting it differently, if the order of Additional Commissioner is based on certain reasoning, it was obligatory on the part of learned Board of Revenue to examine each of such reasoning, analyze the same and assign its independent reasons as to why Board decided to interfere in the impugned order. The Board did not deal with the relevant clause of policy and location of land etc. It is simply opined that since as per relevant documents and Khasra entry the land is situated in Village Kohefiza, no fault can be found in the order of Collector Stamp. The Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. And another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. In the said judgment, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a). In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b). A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c). Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d). Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e). Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f). (d). Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e). Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f). Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g). Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h). The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i). Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j). Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k). If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then M/S. Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. on 8 September, 2010 it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l). Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m). It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n). Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n). Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o). In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". As analyzed above, in absence of adequate reasons the learned Board of Revenue has committed an error in interfering with the order of learned Additional Commissioner. Resultantly, the order dated 06.02.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Board of Revenue to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. C.C. as per rules." 9. Accordingly, this petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 4.8.2020 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2117/2020 (Smt. Bindia Chawla & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh). Resultantly, the order dated 6.2.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. PBR/Appeal/Bhopal/Stamp Act/2018/365 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this miscellaneous petition is finally disposed of.